Anyone who thinks that any iteration of Batman (of either gender) getting married is a good idea, shouldn't be writing Batman.

Batman is married to the job. Crime fighting is his passion not women. Any Female version of Batman should reflect this. She needs to be dark, smart, driven and strong. But most of all clear in her intent, she needs to focus on who she is (A Crime Fighter).

Batman sort of has a thing for Catwoman and Ra's AL Ghul's daughter, but he hasn't married them. He gets Talia pregnant but leaves her to raise the kid herself.

Just no. A bat marriage is a dumb idea. It just seems like some kind of controversy ploy to sell a few copies.

And your comments look like you never read one of the Batwoman Comic from Rucka and William. Batwoman is NOT Batman, her maybe spouse has a dangerous job herself and even her whole family is 24/7 in danger. Its just idiotic to be so one dimensional. The batverse is big and the different bat-persons should explore different aspects.In a world where Batpeople survive explosions and houses comming down is at least one kevlar west for the spouse of the hero.

Spot1990:Was Batwoman married in the old continuity? It might be simply that DC didn't want to have such a permanent move made with the character. I mean they mad Alan Scott gay in the New 52 so I'm finding it hard to believe they're a bunch of raging homophobes. So before we break out the torches and pitch forks can we at least consider for a second that this might have to do with story issues. They also broke up Superman and Lois Lane. Remember when Spidey got married? Pretty awful. DC could just be trying to avoid that.

According the JH Williams III this is indeed why the move was made.

So it seems to be less an issue of homophobia and more an issue of over reaching editorial control.

I'd make a comment about how Wonder Woman should be bisexual (for various reason)..

and those reasons are?besides having grown up on an island full of woman and fan wish fullfillment that they are all lesbians.

I suggest you do a little research into the life of William Moulton Marston, the creator of Wonder woman and then you may gain some insight into Bara_no_Hime's reasoning.

i have.i know that he was a feminist that said that the female sex was the superior sex and he also had some bdsm fetish which he reflected into his comics by having wonder woman tied with some ropes and spanked etc. suspiciously often.

marscentral:I'm pretty sure this is more about marriage and divorce then them being lesbians. Even though married Spider-man was working fine, Marvel hated his marriage and most of their silly choices with him came from that, all because they couldn't just have him divorce MJ. DC didn't want Superman married, even though that was also fine, but at least lived with it until they could easily retcon it without an awful OMD story. If future writers wanted to give Batwoman a new love interest, they'd be in the same predicament.

I get that, but in the New 52 we've seen Barbara Gordon out of a wheel-chair for the first time in decades. And Batwoman has been an on-off thing for most of her existence, being re-introduced and re-invented as whoever was writing saw fit. Also, it's hard to justify decisions which MAY affect future writers when the same decisions cost you your CURRENT writers (and artist) who have turned the series into a highly acclaimed work.

What it comes down to is this: Would anyone who is currently invested in the character and series mind if Kate got married, so long as it was handled with the care that the series has been shown to date? I'm pretty sure the answer is 'no'.

I agree with you, as I said, I thought Spider-man and Superman's marriages were fine. As someone who is following Batwoman, it would be nice to see her get some happiness and see where that all goes. I'm just explaining their crazy reasoning.

they arent against the marriage, they are tired to have to change a years worth of material only because the publisher wants to spontaniously throw gay marriage scenes "just cause".

and its understandable.

and those reasons are?besides having grown up on an island full of woman and fan wish fullfillment that they are all lesbians.

I suggest you do a little research into the life of William Moulton Marston, the creator of Wonder woman and then you may gain some insight into Bara_no_Hime's reasoning.

i have.i know that he was a feminist that said that the female sex was the superior sex and he also had some bdsm fetish which he reflected into his comics by having wonder woman tied with some ropes and spanked etc. suspiciously often.

Wonder Woman was based on his mistress. His mistress which he "shared" with his wife, if I remember correctly.

Wait. What? Its 2013? Sorry, I was in my time capsule for a bit. Thought it was the 70's for awhile.

Jeez...

Well, kudos to the artists for recognizing what bullshit the reasoning for messing with years of development was and walking. I certainly hope they find more work in the industry and eventually get thanked for taking the stand.

Monster_user:How many DC writers know how to write married crime fighters, or a crime fighter who is married?

It simply be that so many comic book writers don't know how to write good married characters, and so DC wouldn't be able to get anyone to write for the book after they left in the future. They would have reboot Batwoman after this run.

So no need to challenge the writers? Who knows what greatness could have come out of it, and now they don't even try. What if Alan Moore had thought "Hmm, this Watchmen seems too original and unique, better axe that and make a normal superhero story..."? DC could have given the marriage a try, as it's sure as hell that Batman won't do it.

Also, DC might be worried how a largley teen audience would react to stories about a married couple. It reduces the relatability of the character. Though, I don't know what demographic Batwoman is targetting.

Teens are stupid. If I could dictate, every teen would mandatorily play Planescape: Torment instead of Call of Duties and all that crap. Also, is it good for teens to learn that every relationship makes one of the participants to end up dead and inside the refridgerator?

I suggest you do a little research into the life of William Moulton Marston, the creator of Wonder woman and then you may gain some insight into Bara_no_Hime's reasoning.

i have.i know that he was a feminist that said that the female sex was the superior sex and he also had some bdsm fetish which he reflected into his comics by having wonder woman tied with some ropes and spanked etc. suspiciously often.

Wonder Woman was based on his mistress. His mistress which he "shared" with his wife, if I remember correctly.

I'm not sure mistress is the proper term. They were all involved in a consensual three-way relationship and both women help to co-create the character.

As to the whole BSDM fetish it seems Joe Shuster the co-creator of Superman had one as well.

Redlin5:Don't want to rock the boat now do we? That would be bad for sales.

Wait. What? Its 2013? Sorry, I was in my time capsule for a bit.

Well that certainly explains how you missed reading the article and the thread and the reasons why this has nothing to do with homophobia.

Wilco86:So no need to challenge the writers? Who knows what greatness could have come out of it, and now they don't even try. What if Alan Moore had thought "Hmm, this Watchmen seems too original and unique, better axe that and make a normal superhero story..."? DC could have given the marriage a try, as it's sure as hell that Batman won't do it.

It's funny that it's the Watchmen you use as an example. You do know that Moore originally wanted to use existing DC characters in that story but DC felt that it would make too many permanent changes to the characters that following writers would either have to adapt to or retcon. The reason Alan Moore had to create those characters is the exact same reason Batwoman won't be getting married, DC hate change.

The ever shifting Batman continuity is getting difficult to keep up with. So has it been retconned that Batman knew about the kid, but left him in Talia's care? Also, is this the deceased Damian Wayne/Robin we are talking about?

Dude as far as I know Damian is alive... but as you said it is really tangled as of late.

Well Damian was raised by Talia as an assassin then he became Grayson Batman's sidekick. The two have a constant hilariousdebate over whether killing is a good idea or not.

The ever shifting Batman continuity is getting difficult to keep up with. So has it been retconned that Batman knew about the kid, but left him in Talia's care? Also, is this the deceased Damian Wayne/Robin we are talking about?

Dude as far as I know Damian is alive... but as you said it is really tangled as of late.

Well Damian was raised by Talia as an assassin then he became Grayson Batman's sidekick. The two have a constant hilariousdebate over whether killing is a good idea or not.

That was an entire continuity ago. In the New 52 Batman's always been Bruce Wayne. Damian is dead. Seriously, DC's fucked right now.

By this logic I assume any and all superheroes and superheroines who, upon receiving their powers, don't immediately sever all ties with everyone they've ever cared about are irresponsible. Significant others are a popular target, but last I checked Aunt May was constantly tossed about, threatened, and killed, and yet she never got it on with Peter.

Not outside of some truly disturbing fanfics, anyway.

The idea that superheroes/heroines can't have significant people in their lives is, yes, stupid. It leads to characters who go through the same old "I want, but I can't, but I want!" with potential partners, over and over, until you want to scream Chinese curses at the top of your lungs and wedgie Batman's emo ass to kingdom come.

Maybe it's irresponsible to have loved ones if you have a target on your back, but guess what? Most superheroes/heroines are humans. Humans are flawed. We're not rational beings, and sorry, but this constant "setting the one I love aside only to grab the next piece of tail that heads my direction" is fucking annoying.

Well I'm glad you arent writing Batman comics.

The reason Batman stands up to villains like Darksied and Lobo, and stands shoulder to shoulder with wonder woman and superman, is because he is damn near perfect. He is the best example of a human being in DC comics, and he has devoted himself solely to fighting evil. He is a human and ultimately flawed (like his damaged childhood and revenge issues) but rationality isn't one of his flaws, so I dont know where your going with that part of your argument. He also doesnt grab much tail at all... he sort of has no sex drive... other than as Bruce Wayne which is a facade. You seem to know Spiderman but have you ever read a Batman comic? because the Batmen we both know seem vastly different.

We can argue this again and again but marriage doesn't fit in with the Batman I know, and I dont think it fits Batwoman either. I accept you do and we'll have to agree to disagree.

Others have been telling me Batwoman is her own character and not Batman! To that I say why not make Crocodile woman or something? As I said the point of putting a character through the gender bender is to see what the difference in sex affects, not change the fundamental things which make up the character (like Batmans all consuming need for revenge on crime). But yeah if you guys think Batwoman being different is fine, then I wont hate you for it. We all have different opinions and I'm only prepared to debate Batmans love life to a certain extent.

Wether they do the Batwoman lesbian marriage or not... it's still fanservice for males.

Seems like a lose-lose for writers. Not to mention you're excluding any lesbian readers who might enjoy that fanservice too.

Include lesbianism: Just pandering to pensises hur-hur.Not include lesbianism: Just keeping LGBT down!

I think we're gonna have to be a bit more open if we're gonna encourage writers to experiment. Being hypercritical is not always constructive, and we might sometimes be projecting our own prejudices too.

Speaking personally, I've only read a couple of issues of Batwoman, but it didn't seem particularly fanservice-y. And even if it was, that doesn't stop it from being a decent comic with a LGBT character. The Authority had plenty of fanservice.

is DC sucking (and being run by idiots) even news anymore? the only surprising thing here is that you'd use The Force Unleashed as an effort to tell us why we'd LIKE a writer.

Truth be told, though, DC is right about not marrying the two. Not because of the evils of homosexuality or some bullshit, but because we already know how a marriage between the two will work out.

Marriage in comics means that one of them will die horribly and the other that oh-so-grown-up angst, or they'll both catch it and have a bitter divorce, or writers will get bored with it and come up with some magical nonsense retcon so that the characters can be separated again.

As much as I enjoy seeing people having the spine to stick it to the man against executive meddling, especially to preserve their "artistic vision" (though I hate that phrase), there is one niggling thought I can't dispel...

"We fought to get them engaged but were told emphatically that no marriage can result."

They were specifically told not to write in a marriage, then wrote in a marriage. And apparently they didn't anticipate the bosses getting their panties in a twist. Well what in the name of Zeus' left testicle were they expecting?

Execs need writers, and writers need execs. It's a two-way street. As far as I see it, everyone's in the wrong - management for being overbearing, and the writers for disregarding a direct and unambiguous order. Politics aside, I'm just sorry to see a (good?) comic suffer because these guys can't get along.

Beyond that, I don't know the writers, execs, company or characters well enough to speculate on the reasons why the execs threw a wobbly so I'll keep to myself the knee-jerk reaction I was about to write here.

SquidSponge:As much as I enjoy seeing people having the spine to stick it to the man when the execs try to meddle, especially to preserve their "artistic vision" (I hate that phrase), there is one niggling thought I can't dispel...

"We fought to get them engaged but were told emphatically that no marriage can result."

They were specifically told not to write in a marriage, then wrote in a marriage. And apparently they didn't anticipate the bosses getting their panties in a twist. Well what in the name of Zeus' left testicle were they expecting?

Execs need writers, and writers need execs. It's a two-way street. As far as I see it, everyone's in the wrong - management for being overbearing, and the writers for disregarding a direct and unambiguous order. Politics aside, I'm just sorry to see a (good?) comic suffer because these guys can't get along.

Beyond that, I don't know the writers, execs, company or characters well enough to speculate on the reasons why the execs threw a wobbly so I'll keep to myself the knee-jerk reaction I was about to write here.

To be fair, when you fight to include an engagement in a story, it's logical that something like a marriage would result from it. It's not a goof on the writers part for pushing it, it's idiocy on DC's part for not realizing that getting engaged would result in characters getting married. (gee, when you ask someone to marry you, they'll get married to you. Didn't see that coming) They gave permission to the writers for the characters to get engaged, so by extension DC was allowing the writers to write them getting married.

It would be as if you asked your parents to borrow their car, and they said yes. But halfway backing down the driveway they yelled at you because they didn't give you permission to use Reverse.

The writers even said they planned every arc out months before they wrote an issue, so DC was aware that there was going to be a marriage loooong before they canceled it.

SquidSponge:They were specifically told not to write in a marriage, then wrote in a marriage. And apparently they didn't anticipate the bosses getting their panties in a twist. Well what in the name of Zeus' left testicle were they expecting?

I have feeling the idea was "Let's get them to agree to the engagement, show how well it will sell and how fans will love it, then we can convince them on the marriage down the line."

And it obviously didn't pan out. And to be honest, I wasn't a fan of the proposal at all but more because it felt like a gimmick since co-creator of Batwoman, Greg Rucka, had just walked off the book at the time citing the same thing. That the editors and executives were meddling to much in what the creators want to do.

It felt like the new writer trying to say "I won't make her just some lipstick lesbian fap bank, see I'm having her get married."

That's why this doesn't feel homophobic. Since the New 52 George Perez, Rob Liefeld, Greg Rucka and now W. Haden Blackman and J.H. Williams III have quit citing that same editorial interference that keeps them from telling the stories they planned on telling.

Specifically in this case what isn't discussed is that it isn't just about a wedding, W. Haden Blackman and J.H. Williams III were also forced to change their plan to give Killer Croc a new origin and had to change the ending to their most recent story arc. The wedding is just icing on the shit cake the two have been eating trying to tell the stories they want to tell.

And when you do something your boss had instructed you unequivocally not to do, it's logical that something like an argument results from it.

Yes, corporate meddling sucks, always has, always will, but my point is the writers should've expected the execs' reaction. They were told "OK they can get engaged but NOT married!" and they accepted those terms. I'm not even saying those terms were reasonable (indeed, I say they're not). But the bald fact is the writers broke the terms, and seem surprised that the bosses are pissed off. Upon the original agreement, one can only presume the execs thought a breakup or indefinite engagement or something was the order of the day.

As for engagement resulting in marriage, that's clearly what almost always happens in real life, but this is a comic book! The abberent is the norm, and drama oozes from every page! They could cancel due to commitment issues or the revelation of a dark secret, the partner could be tragically killed at the altar by the archnemesis, the ceremony could be interrupted, the hero might have to choose between getting to her wedding or saving the bus full o' schoolkids. That's off the top of my head, and I'm no writer. When the superpowers come out to play, Mr. Science and Mrs. Logic are safely curled up in bed.

Alternatively, the writers could've engaged trollface and done a civil partnership instead of a marriage.

SquidSponge:As much as I enjoy seeing people having the spine to stick it to the man against executive meddling, especially to preserve their "artistic vision" (though I hate that phrase), there is one niggling thought I can't dispel...

"We fought to get them engaged but were told emphatically that no marriage can result."

They were specifically told not to write in a marriage, then wrote in a marriage. And apparently they didn't anticipate the bosses getting their panties in a twist. Well what in the name of Zeus' left testicle were they expecting?

Execs need writers, and writers need execs. It's a two-way street. As far as I see it, everyone's in the wrong - management for being overbearing, and the writers for disregarding a direct and unambiguous order. Politics aside, I'm just sorry to see a (good?) comic suffer because these guys can't get along.

Beyond that, I don't know the writers, execs, company or characters well enough to speculate on the reasons why the execs threw a wobbly so I'll keep to myself the knee-jerk reaction I was about to write here.

I may be wrong but I believe they fought to get the characters engaged. Then they wrote plans and story lines for marriage for the two of them, as is to be expected for engaged characters. Only then for the publisher to come in last minute and say that even though they allowed an engagement they're not going to allow a marriage, which is what an engagement implies.

I may be wrong but I believe they fought to get the characters engaged. Then they wrote plans and story lines for marriage for the two of them, as is to be expected for engaged characters. Only then for the publisher to come in last minute and say that even though they allowed an engagement they're not going to allow a marriage, which is what an engagement implies.

Huh, that's a different interpretation to what I took from OP - I suspect your interpretation may be correct there, as it would explain things. From the OP I took the "no marriage" thing to be a clear and long-standing prior agreement, but it is likely I was mistaken.

I still maintain, however, that engagement does not necessarily imply marriage in any fictional plot though - far from it. Drama, people, drama! I'm sure they could've written around this one (admittedly large) road-bump, but I suspect their resignation is due to a longer-term pattern of meddling, or the threat thereof.

Maybe they didn't want to have the character get written into a corner here? Marriages are (supposed to be) permanent, it's a lot easier to write in a break-up vs. marital problems. Plus, if another love interest appeared, it'd be hard to sell the honorable, heroic concept when she's cheating on her spouse.

Best thing I could come up with in their defense so far. Hard defending ideas you don't really agree with.

Maybe they didn't want to have the character get written into a corner here? Marriages are (supposed to be) permanent, it's a lot easier to write in a break-up vs. marital problems. Plus, if another love interest appeared, it'd be hard to sell the honorable, heroic concept when she's cheating on her spouse.

Best thing I could come up with in their defense so far. Hard defending ideas you don't really agree with.

Maybe

Just maybe here

This may sound crazy but

Batwoman (or any other married hero) could fight super powered villains without another love interest showing up? The revolving door love interest comic thing is about as boring as people think marriage is. The whole "anti-marriage" thing isn't about dodging corners...well...I guess it kind of is, but only because the writers suck so much at writing relationships that anything that's not "unresolved sexual tension" is a corner for them.

But seriously guys, these forums are defending rape more than marriage.

By this logic I assume any and all superheroes and superheroines who, upon receiving their powers, don't immediately sever all ties with everyone they've ever cared about are irresponsible. Significant others are a popular target, but last I checked Aunt May was constantly tossed about, threatened, and killed, and yet she never got it on with Peter.

Not outside of some truly disturbing fanfics, anyway.

The idea that superheroes/heroines can't have significant people in their lives is, yes, stupid. It leads to characters who go through the same old "I want, but I can't, but I want!" with potential partners, over and over, until you want to scream Chinese curses at the top of your lungs and wedgie Batman's emo ass to kingdom come.

Maybe it's irresponsible to have loved ones if you have a target on your back, but guess what? Most superheroes/heroines are humans. Humans are flawed. We're not rational beings, and sorry, but this constant "setting the one I love aside only to grab the next piece of tail that heads my direction" is fucking annoying.

Well I'm glad you arent writing Batman comics.

The reason Batman stands up to villains like Darksied and Lobo, and stands shoulder to shoulder with wonder woman and superman, is because he is damn near perfect. He is the best example of a human being in DC comics, and he has devoted himself solely to fighting evil. He is a human and ultimately flawed (like his damaged childhood and revenge issues) but rationality isn't one of his flaws, so I dont know where your going with that part of your argument. He also doesnt grab much tail at all... he sort of has no sex drive... other than as Bruce Wayne which is a facade. You seem to know Spiderman but have you ever read a Batman comic? because the Batmen we both know seem vastly different.

We can argue this again and again but marriage doesn't fit in with the Batman I know, and I dont think it fits Batwoman either. I accept you do and we'll have to agree to disagree.

Others have been telling me Batwoman is her own character and not Batman! To that I say why not make Crocodile woman or something? As I said the point of putting a character through the gender bender is to see what the difference in sex affects, not change the fundamental things which make up the character (like Batmans all consuming need for revenge on crime). But yeah if you guys think Batwoman being different is fine, then I wont hate you for it. We all have different opinions and I'm only prepared to debate Batmans love life to a certain extent.

I'm sorry but it really seems that you're the one that doesn't know Batman. This isn't an insult this is not putting you down for having less knowledge of a fictional character this is simply me saying that there are things you have missed about the character by not being exposed to as much of him.

Batwoman for example is not a new character The current version has been a part of comics since 2006 and is a major part of the DC landscape and Batman mythos. The original was created back in 1956 and neither was or is a gender bendered or gender swapped Bruce Wayne. They are their own characters with their own back stories, hopes, dreams and goals There is no reason to and it would be lazy writing to make them be exactly like Bruce.

As to the no sex drive thing,both as Bruce, and as Batman he has had many on again off again relationships and romances. Trust me Batman has a sex drive and it is quite active.

Well, this just shows once again DC's stupidity. Oh, not about the gay rights thing. I doubt any personal opinions on it was what fueled this choice, with possible exception being the idea that a gay marriage might scare of their more homophobic audience. I was just referring to the editorial mandate and piss poor handling of the situation and informing of the writers. That they didn't want her married because it broke the status quo seems most likely. The problem is, DC hasn't been making very many good choices since they did the new 52. The only book of the series that seemed to catch my interest was Demon Knights, though heard that was canceled so go figure. On top of that, you have character's personalities being gutted, fan favorites being killed as though the comics are jealous that the tv shows has fan favorites and so many, many uninspired and over done story lines and plots, that are executed sloppily at best. Then there was that whole "We make comics for 40 year old man-children" thing (pretty sure it was something like that, if not, disregard). Still, the whole thing just reeks of a company that has lost its passion for the material and instead looks increasingly like a company trying to just market its assets. I can only look at things and see the same personality that lead to hollywood reviving and gutting older franchises for quick-buck family movies that sucked.

K12:Well done to the writers for making a difficult decision and sticking to their principles.

Let's hope that Batwoman crashes and burns from this point and DC are forced to retcon everything back to this point and allow the writers to tell their fucking story!

Bollocks to DC for screwing over the people who are making all their damn money for them and screw them for being think enough to think that an engaged couple wouldn't eventually get married because they are lesbians.

The only one making this about lesbians are the writer of this article and the people in here bitching. As has already been said, none of the major DC heroes are married. They even broke up Lois Lane and Superman for the New 52. There's no reason to think this is any different than them not marrying their other heroes other than people love moral outrage.

Ok then well done to the writers for not putting up with shitty executive meddling because a blanket "none of our characters can get married even if they are engaged" rule is retarded.

If DC have decided to make a general "no married people" rule then there decision to refuse a gay wedding isn't homophobic just thick.

The journalism on this site can be misleading quite often and I don't usually trust it that much but here I personally don't feel like I've unfairly jumped to conclusions because I wouldn't for the life of me expect a entire company to decide that only unmarried people could be superheroes...

You hear someone shout "I hate your sort of people" at a black guy wearing jeans you assume the person is racist not anti-jeans. So DC are idiots just not necessarily homophobic idiots.

I assume that you will reverse your position when one of the other straight DC characters get married by the way?

Same problem with Marvel, DC has it.... The token effort to be inclusive has been made, the Green Lantern-NO-NOT-the-REAL-one-Alan-Scott gay relationship is done so DC is now as "progressive" as they want to be. They're not going to take a big name character, even a B-rated one like Batgirl, and see her... much less a HIM... in a gay relationship. Never going to see Supes, Bats, Any Justice Leaguer even ponder the idea of a same-sex relationship, even in a drunken haze in a parallel world. Not going to happen.

They're not "homophobes" they're just cowards, same as most people. Upsetting the culturally accepted norm, even if they consciously know it's over something that doesn't matter and isn't morally objectionable to any mature adult, is NOT going to happen... at least, not until someone ELSE does it first.

I'd say I was disappointed, but it's already exactly what I'd expect. They know where the money is coming from and they don't want to risk alienating their fanbase or their fanbase's wallets with feet, their parents.

I don't read much DC books put follow comics a bit. Batwoman has done well for DC even when they don't try much different stuff these days. I agree this kind of lame decision from the suits upstairs, is another reason why I dislike the corporate structure of the big two.

Lesbian Batwoman might have seen a huge spike in sales and media coverage. Seems the old boy network dislike the idea, when there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Another reason why the creator owned indie comics scene is better and thriving (at Image,IDW, Boom etc), with so much cool stories, that can push boundaries and not be so conservative and compromised by suits.

Spot1990:Was Batwoman married in the old continuity? It might be simply that DC didn't want to have such a permanent move made with the character. I mean they mad Alan Scott gay in the New 52 so I'm finding it hard to believe they're a bunch of raging homophobes. So before we break out the torches and pitch forks can we at least consider for a second that this might have to do with story issues. They also broke up Superman and Lois Lane. Remember when Spidey got married? Pretty awful. DC could just be trying to avoid that.

Spiderman's marriage was never the problem, it was that his writers never did anything with it, and then Joe Quesada decided to fuck it all up and make one of the most infamous retcons in comic book history.

As for DC's ignorant choice, I don't think it's as much of homophobia as it is paranoia at the potential backlash of the actual homophobic religious groups. If they were allowed to show the wedding, then whatever religious group that had a ceremony that looked like what they showed would likely freak out. I'm not saying I approve of their decision to cower in fear, but I do see why they may have done it. The problem remains that the LGBTQ community will continue to stay at a disadvantage when content creators in the world are hamstrung by in the THOUGHT of contraversy. Publishers need to take a stand and acknowledge you can't please everyone, and should worry more about pleasing the people that are actually filling their coffers.

Comic book Weddings are always going to be some of the most goofy plotlines to ever happen in comic books.

Seriously, they are always written out to be some action-packed adventure full of intrigue. Some bad guy always interrupts the "I dos" just to be a dick. Or all the groomsmen /bridesmaids team up for one last epic fight. Or the honeymoon is put on hold because "a hero's work is never done." Or the flower bouquet just magically lands on the broodiest anti-socialite there, usually the one who had a thing for the bride/groom. Its so bad its cliche. Its like a fucking American Pie movie.

I honestly couldn't care less about Batwoman being gay. Truthfully, I honestly couldn't care less about Batwoman. Lets see Darth Vader gay marry Chewbacca with the Emperor handing him off and Boba Fett getting jealous. Now that's controversy. Oh wait, better through some Obama in there for good measure.